Comment: Grigg's poor reasoning

(See in situ)

Grigg's poor reasoning

Mr. Grigg builds his argument on faulty premises.

First, we can look at the faulty argument that accepting money predicated on an allocation system one doesn't believe best as tantamount to, I guess he's saying, hypocritical at best and treason at worst. Such an argument would mean that any unhypocritical, untreasonous citizen should never call 911 if they live in a jurisdiction that receives federal funds. Nor should such parents send their children to public schools, or drive on public roads -- or allow themselves to use any unconstitutional government benefit. It's silly. It defines the hypocrite or untrustworthy as anyone who isn't living in a van down by the river. (Even that guy is probably gets some positive extranality from the federal tax dollar at work.)

I thought Ron Paul dealt with this faulty logic quite well in an interview last year. When asked why he adds requests for federal projects in his district into the omnibus bill despite that he always votes against the bill in final form, he said that the current system takes federal tax dollars from folks in his district with the understanding that some of it will come back to them. This is the system, and, although he doesn't like it, he is representing his constituents as best he can within this flawed system. To do otherwise would cheat his district out of part of their federal tax dollars. It's the old you play the hand you're dealt -- even while working to change the rules of the game.

Mr. Grigg, apparently, does not respect Paul's philosophy here. Nor does he seem to comprehend the real world of real people in the fray, struggling for the more just outcome. I see he writes a blog and does a radio program. In other words, he just says stuff; he doesn't contend with the messy middle where real people, like Dr. Paul, attempt to navigate the less-than-ideal and drive toward something better.

Second, his assumption that taking something from the "enemy" -- equates to being in the enemy's pocket. You can bet that folks who think this way do so only because they ARE THIS WAY. Mr. Grigg may not be able to stand up to any man who shoves a nickle in his, but the majority of people can and do every day.

"If you take the nickel, you take the noose," Mr. Grigg writes. (This is, in fact, the fulcrum on which his argument swings.) I'm not sure in what sort of world such a statement would be true, but I'm quite sure it isn't mine. So Rep. Paul, who has taken many nickles from the Federal Government, has taken the noose? So has every citizen who has taken social security, sent their child to public school, used the services of anyone who has taken a federal college grant or loan -- or done so themselves -- lived in a home mortgaged through Freddy or Fanny. The list goes on. His argument is absurd.

Third, he forgets that sheriffs, by and large, are elected throughout this country. He wants to poke at sheriffs because they aren't his readers/listeners while ignoring the people who elect them.

"There isn’t a single county sheriff’s office in the country that hasn’t compromised itself by accepting federal funds, and collaborating in unconstitutional federal enforcement operations. They’ve long since lost their innocence, but are pretending that they’ve just noticed that fact."

Let's see how that would play if he put in the correct noun.

There isn’t a single voter in the country who hasn’t compromised himself by refusing to vote for sheriffs who make it a campaign issue to refuse federal funds. Voters collaborate in unconstitutional federal enforcement operations by not making this a top priority in the voting booth. Citizens/voters have long since lost their innocence, but are pretending that they’ve just noticed that fact.

Ah, but who among his blog and radio audience would wish to be condemned with the same brush he reserves for sheriffs? Mr. Grigg knows his audience would rather point elsewhere, and so he gives them a finger. It's them. It's always some other them. Comfy.